Orissa

Rayagada

CC/59/2016

Chendra Sekhar Rajaguru - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurace Co LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 59 / 2016.                                         Date.   20. 12   . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                   Member

Sri  Chandra  Sekhar Rajaguru,  S/O: Ramanath Rajaguru, At: D.P.Camp, Po:Therubali,  Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.    Cell  No.8895370101                                                                                                                                                                                       …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, The  New  India Assurance Company Ltd., Bangalore, State:Karnataka.                                                                                    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri B.B.Pani, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

                                                         

                                          J u d g e m e n t.

         

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment of  insurance amount of mobile set..  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

                That the complainant had purchased a Sony mobile  D2212 vide IMEI No. 35644606/ 6423067  as per Invoice Sl. No. 6858  Dt. 29.1.2015     from  M/S. Indira Fancy Store, Rayagada for a sum of Rs.10,800/-. The complainant made the mobile set insurance  with the O.P. on the same day i.e. on Dt. 29.1.2015. The said mobile set lost on 11.10.2015 at  about 9 A.M. some where and could not trace out  When the complainant did not find  out  the said  mobile set, he intimated the matter  to the  I.I.C., of Chandili Police Station informing that  somebody   had pick pocketed the mobile set  from his phant pocket on  11.10.2015 at about 9 A.M.  But till date  he has not received  his mobile set.  The complainant also moved the customer service manager,  Airtel  office,   for blocking the incoming and outgoing calls for the said number. When  he could not find  out his mobile set  filed a claim petition before the O.P. claiming the insurance amount , but  his claim petition has been rejected by the  O.P. with some or  other plea. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the  O.P. to make payment of insurance claim amount  and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

                On being notice the O.P. appeared through their learned counsel and submitted written version  refuting the  allegation of the complainant. The averments made by  the complainant  in the complaint may be  considered to have been rebutted and  denied  unless specifically admitted  herein after. The complaint petition is not maintainable.  The O.P disputed that the  complainant suppressed material information.  The O.P  repudiated the insurance claim on the  grounds  that  the SIM  did not block within 48 hours of the said theft and also register the claim.    The O.P. prays the forum  to dismiss the complaint petition  against the O.P. for the best interest of justice.

The O.P     appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  learned counsels for  the O.P.     and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed  by  both  the  parties. 

            The  learned counsel  for the O.P and complainant  vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  to insurance claim made by him ?

            There is no dispute that  the complainant   was  purchased  the  mobile set  bearing IMEI  No. 35644606/ 6423067  as per Invoice Sl. No. 6858  Dt. 29.1.2015     which was insured  by the O.P.  bearing  policy  No. 67030246132400000008 having validity from Dt.31.1.2015 to 30.1.2016 and the same was in force  on the   date of theft i.e. on Dt. 11.10.2015.   Further there is no dispute  the matter of theft  was duly  intimated to the  police and  also  O.P.   In turn the  surveyor has investigated   and given report  to the O.P.

           The O.Ps in their written version contended that the case is not maintainable before the forum. Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complaint petition  is maintainable   under C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation. It is held and reported in  CPC- 1991, page -540 the  Hon’ble  Hariyana State  Commission held that when ever there is any delay or dilatoriness in finalizing  the insurance claim, the same would be tenta  mount to a  deficiency  in service and thus comes squarely within the  purview of Consumer Forum.  Once it is held that default or negligence in the  settlement of an insurance claim is a deficiency  in service then an arbitrary  or mischievous  rejection  of an insurance claim  would patently  be a default  within its larger  meaning. On principle , it would   seem  some what manifest that the mere repudiation of the insurance claim cannot itself operate  as a  jurisdiction bar for redressel forums under the Act.  This is further  made it clear  it is held and reported  in CPR-1991(2), page No.18  where in  the Hon’ble National Commission  clearly defines  the mere unilateral  rejection of an insured parties  claimed by the insurer does not  per  se  operate as jurisdictional bar to seek redressal before  the forums under the Act. Accordingly answered the issue.   The complaint  petition  is  maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

The  next  point for consideration are :-

Whether there is any deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

 “Service” is defined in section 2(1)(o)  of the Act  thus:-

                “Service”means service of any description which is made available  to potential    users and included the provisions  of facilities  in connection with banking,  financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of  Electrical or other energy, board  or  lodging or both,  entertainment,  amusement or the purveying   of news or information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under conract or personal service”.

“Insurance” is one of the service  enumerated there and falls  within the ambit of definition.

          The O.P disputed that the  complainant suppressed material information.  The O.P  repudiated the insurance claim on the  grounds  that  the SIM  did not block within 48 hours of the said theft and also register the claim  inter alia no police  investigation  report and final form. 

              In support of  this case the complainant  filed a  xerox copies  of   F.I.R. Dt. 11.101.2015  of Chandili  P.S.,Dist: Rayagada.

            On  query it is revealed  and admitted  fact that   the required documents will neither  increase  nor decrease  the loss amount arrived  by the   Suveyor in the final surveyer  report.

Further this forum perused  citation  reported in   CPR- 2004(2) page No. 80  where in   the Hon’ble   State Commission, West Bengal  allowed  similar  type  case in  absence  of documents  required by the O.P. 

Further it is held as reported in SCC (1979) 4   page- 178  “Resort to the plea of limitation by public authority to defeat just  claim of citizen depreciated- Though  permissible under law, such technical pleas should only be taken when claim is not well founded”. Again the Hon’ble  Supreme Court opined  that “ it is high time the “Govts. and public  authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate  claims  of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Further the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in deciding the said  U/S- 136 of the Constitution of  India has kept in mind, the constitutional duty imposed on the public sector Company/organization. Being public sector Company/organization are supposed to facilitate the concept of welfare state and interest of the citizens and do not extract monetary  benefit by rejecting  just claim of the citizen on technical grounds.

Further it is held  and report in C.T.J. 2008 page No. 917 the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  held that the insurance company after having accepted the value of  a particular  insured goods at the time of  insuring the goods cannot disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay the compensation.   Take it or leave it attitude in such a case is not only  unwarranted being bad in law but ethically indefeasible  would  be liable to pay the compensation  on the insured amount on it had accepted the premium for the entire amount covered  under the policy.

On  going  through  the  final surveyor report  of O.P.  we are of the view that the  complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,440.00 on total  loss basis. 

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, and referring on above Citations there  is  strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

          Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                       

                                                          ORDER.

          In the resultant the complaint petition is allowed on contest against  the  O.P  in part.

The O.P  is   ordered  to pay Rs.5,440.00     to the complainant as per the survey  report towards  contract of insurance inter-alia to pay  Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The  O.P  is  ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  30 days from  the date of   receipt of this order. Service the copies of the order  to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me           Pronounced on this  20  th.     Day  of  December,   2017.

Presiding   Member.                                      Presiding  Member.                                        President